A game mechanic I really dislike in many C-RPG is the mandatory pre-emptive buffing before each combat. Instead of buffs being meaningful choices you have to make during combat in reaction to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, the game is balanced so your party is always weaker and outnumbered and you just have to do heavy preparation before each encounter. It is a huge time sink and encourages save scumming.
@@CidGuerreiro1234 It's a staple of DnD and Pathfinder games indeed. That and the rogue having to open the way at reduced speed to detect traps, makes me wary of TTRPG adaptations into video games.
Having a persuasion system that is integrated into quest and story lines yet everyone and their mothers keep trying to talk to a party member in the back of the group without it instead of the one who is speced for it(Divinity 2). This influences you to almost always make your main character a persuasion build which tends to make them weaker or less effective elsewhere.
It is more Larian thing, cause same shit is in BG3, when npc stars conversation not with your character, but with the closet to npc (khem, auntie ellie fight, khem). Espiacialy suck, cause your long range sorcerer never gets that ability +1 :)
The worst example of this is Pathfinder kingmaker, where I felt like I had to play as a charisma based character, because I'm the king. Now I know it's not necessary, you can still put enough points into persuasion without being charisma based, and playing sorcerer was probably the best choice for me. Its still annoying.
@@MrEvilside I really wish rpgs would stop making you prioritize physical vs mental/psychological stats. I can see maybe a shared pool for intelligence, wisdom and charisma but how you swing a sword or dodge shouldnt cut into how well you talk to someone.
100% this. Devs should just allow the whole party to participate in the dialogue - they are standing RIGHT THERE :D It's illogical that the silver tongue character of the party would just stand around while a situation escalates right in front of him. Or if that's difficult mechanically then the persuasion stats should just be shared from the highest character and let our imaginations fill in the gaps that the persuasion character was the one who answered.
@@bluehornet632 I feel like if you created two separate pools like that you would wind up with the same result. It would still be a situation where your character is very wise and strong, but is very stupid and clumsy. I think it's mostly a balance thing: if every character can be good with physical and mental abilities, they start to lose their individuality. I think the best fix for this would be a manual option to select your party's "speaker".
One thing on the last point; in some cases I think party members should absolutely leave the party when players decisions are completely at odds with them. Seelah in Wotr is outrageously accepting for some of the PC decisions.
@@Moosenthusiast Keldorn Will also murder Viconia if you have both of them in the same party for too long. There are some other party member conflicts as well.
-"Five game mechanics that I HATE and MUST BE DESTROYED!"- I really appreciate your videos and the format. And I really appreciate the format that you *don't* use :D
My favorite example of "timer done right" in Kingmaker is actually in Act 1. You have three months to achieve the first major goal of your campaign (getting rid of the robber baron) which is way, WAY more than you'll ever need for it even at a snail pace, but if you manage to do it under a month (which is STILL enough to explore every single area and cover 100% of the game content up to that point, if you keep a brisk pace and don't waste too much time resting more than necessary) you'll get a HEFTY extra reward in the shape of the best +2 Dueling Sword available in Act1 (and for a good portion of Act 2). So we have: strong incentive to not abuse the resting system, strong incentive to not overload your inventory so you can travel light and fast, a deadline that is still reasonably challenging without being too punishing, a very tasty reward to compensate you for the effort. NAILED, Owlcat. Too bad other examples in the same game weren't just as good.
I actually think most (not all) of thr other timers are perfectly fine. It's just that the game works kinda the opposite of what typical RPG players expect. Usually in a typical RPG you do every single side quest first and then you do the main quest. PF:K works the other way around you beeline the main quest then spend the extra time exploring and doing side quests
Timers aren't that bad in themselves in Kingmaker, but information on the timers is quite poor. Not playing for a while and coming back after one month just to f*** up a quest because you didn't remember this specific timer among 20 active quests is very very annoying.
@@quint3ssent1a That is the part of the timer system that I can see complaint about. The issue with the regular timers is, as @okagisama noted, it's just backwards what Bioware/Obsidian players expect. They expect a priority quest to mean, "So important I do it last." Whereas Owlcat expects you to do the timer item first, and if you do it expeditiously, you have plenty of time for all the exploration stuff after. But the 45-60 day timers on some of the card events, in a game that loves to throw you 3-4 events at the same counselor in a month anyway, is terrible. And why I won't shame anyone for a quicker event resolution mod.
The best timer mechanics are in Kingdom Come. You take a quest, there is no visible timer anywhere, you go sleep, you wake up and the quest "fails" because some NPC died on a timer 😆.
My biggest pet peeve is games that have a clearly defined rule system, and then enemies that operate outside of that system for no lore reason. Having more/stacking buffs in ways that aren’t allowed is a big offender, as is the “casts one spell that places like 30 buffs on them simultaneously after you went to the trouble of getting the drop on them”
One that i HATE is in Underrail you have a set numbers of "tiles" you can see, let's say for example 15, this number CANNOT be changed nor can you target anything outside of that range even if you make a Sniper build with a scope, the number stays 15. Welp this rules does not apply to enemies NPCs Snipers who can safely target you from outside of your "Vision" and beyond 15 tiles even when they are using the same exact weapons as you and character build, this is worst in the Expedition expansion where enemies with crossbows can target you with poison bolts and flee if you get too close. Underrail is still a super fun game thought.
@@LordShrub I think that a lot of these boil down to artificial difficulty. Rather than make difficulty scale appropriately and within canon, they just add enemies, make enemies that are "stone walls" or "glass cannons", or who can violate the apparent rules of the game. I would even chalk up half of the things that Mortismal mentioned as being just largely artificial difficulty modifiers. There are more elegant ways of accomplishing the task, but there is no denying that the methods work. It's just the inner craftsman in us insisting that there has to be a better way.
Yep - or when you aren't allowed to cast spells on the enemies out of line of sight, or enemies who moved too far away from you while you were channeling the spell - yet the NPC doesn't give a crap about spell physics like that.
1- Durability mechanics. 2- Fetch quests 3- " choices " when they don't matter, if they don't matter anyway I would rather have no choice. Edit: 4- almost forgot inventory management in general ( looking at you GW2 -_- ).
Yeah botw durability is irritating. Witcher 3 durability was kind of annoying because all you had to do was use a hammer and your done. It's just not a good mechanic.
@@FernandoIncetta It takes very long time for new players to start getting space in their inventory. And 90% of the time needs to buy more bank slots and more material storage just to get going. I still have to sell and keep managing inventory after doing few metas. Don't get me wrong I love gw2, But I don't like the amount of time I am spending managing my inventory, that is a part of the game I do not enjoy.
@@Hsneen you can get 100 slots pretty quickly though? Most things you get while leveling up needs to be salvaged anyway. But I do agree that the various events and meta ends up adding a lot of stuff I never buy bankslot, new character slot is better value for money when it comes to storage
Having played a lot of WoW Classic recently, there's one that comes to mind. When you get a quest to go somewhere and kill 10 wolves, you come back to turn it in, an THEN you get another quest to go back to the same place and kill 10 spiders. Just give me both quest at the same time ffs. (Yes I'm talking about you, Barren Harpies.)
I like timers in *theory*, but almost never in practice. I loved the 3 day cycle in Majoras Mask, but I guess it doesn't really count since the cycle will just restart every time.
In theory it simulates the world going around with or without your character. In practice, it's always better to build a whole system instead of using timers, like early Elder Scrolls games, Fable and Kenshi do. The problem with that is the amount of resources needed to build a decent simulation, it must be a central part of the game to justify the budget and it will still be limited by the state of technology (AI and processing power) . And that's a bit saddening to see that, despite the powerful computers we have nowadays, big RPG companies don't try to go for that "simulating a living world" dream any more.
I love how timers are implemented in Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I don't want to spoil anything if you haven't played it yet but they boil down to plot changes and minor reprimands but the story keeps going in your absence.
for me it's stealth missions in action adventures like Spider-Man and taking your powers away midgame to force you into completely different gameplay and mechanics (looking at the FF15 jumpscare sequence with Noctis) yes, they are overlapping
That part of Final Fantasy 15 was actually when I started liking it. I like a change of playstyle midway through a game. Unless its a sports game.... F**k FFX's blitzball
@@ShikaStyle123 goes to show how different taste can be :D for me it's a cardinal sin to have a game build around certain mechanics/playstyles and then forcing the player into something new for whatever reason. going with the Final Fantasy 15 example: I played maybe 50 hours of awesome combat and loved it. if I truly had wanted a game with jumpscares and making me feel powerless, well I'd have bought a horror survival game :D
The one thing I absolutely hate in open world games and rpgs are patronizing, idiotic a.i companions. The kind of companions that constantly yell at you to 'shoot something', 'get moving' or 'attack', meanwhile they sit on their ass and don't do shit! Forced stealth needs to disappear forever too!
Leveling inactive party memebers should be standard by now so as to avoid the issue of leaving party memebers. Not leveling them just encourages you to dig deeper into the hole you're already digging yourself into and keep using the same characters.
Nice list! My top 3 most hated rpg features are: 1. Enemy level scaling 2. Cookie cutter open worlds (towers and everything) 3. Essential characters that you are prohibited from killing
I actually liked how the timer was implemented in one specific quest in Kingmaker too. That's the one with the barbarians and the cursed sword. If you take too long, you get a slightly different potential outcome and lose the option to recruit him. It doesn't feel lie a binary succeed/fail but instead like the story has just changed.
1. Over-use of cut-scenes. 2. Scripted events where you die regardless of what you do. 3. Pointless and over-use of loot items leading to excessive inventory management. 4. Tedious dialogue especially in most JRPGs. 5. Tedious bosses that eventually die... and then come alive again! 6. Escort quests with "gotcha mechanics" right at the end. 7. Ambiguous stats that make it hard to tell which weapon / armour to use. 8. Excessive / over-use of backtracking. 9. Putting points into a certain build, realising it's trash and not being able to respec. 10. Badly designed checkpoints that make you do the really tricky part after ages doing the easy bits.
i feel like fetch quests can be extremly fun if done right, for example in cyberpunk 2077 many of the gigs are :enter a place, steal something and get out, but the fact that you visit so many unique locations, got at least context for eqch one and can aproach thrm in so many different ways makes it extremly fun, or in stalker where, with the ai its never predictable, you never know whats going to happen on your way there and back, but if its strictly pick something and come back then yes its totally shit
Hey someone saying a nice thing about cyberpunk. Fwiw I do agree, context can make the most irritating video game things not bad. I always think of GTA IV for this.
I know I'm an oddball with this, but the timers in Kingmaker were super immersive for me. Most of my lack of hatred for those timers specifically (I agree with you on most other implementations) was figuring out how absolutely generous they were. As long as you weren't resting between every combat, and purposefully dawdling, you could wrap everything up and still have a long time between acts. I don't know about the hardest difficulty, but on core I never really had issues. It even created some spicy roleplay scenarios in the Season of Bloom chapter.
Even on the hardest you have plenty of time. I remember how stress I was in the first act for the timer and then almost played the rest of the game as if it wasn't there xD
Yeah, I hear a lot of people complain about Kingmaker’s timer, but it is INSANELY generous the entire game. More annoying honestly was how it felt like the kingdom would start ‘crumbling’ at the drop of a hat, with little in the ways to stop it (specifically early on). I love that damn game.
There's a Trpg on the PSP (spectral souls) that when they take a couple party members away they give you PP (points to put in stats;STR, VIT etc) based on the level of the character that left. Really good way to do it imo.
I feel like card-mechanics in lieu of a traditional combat system is relatively quirky and interesting idea that has been MASSIVELY over-used by indie developers recently - a cool idea that becomes a little less cool every time it's implemented, especially when it's implemented poorly.
When you mentioned fetch quests - I just realized that the Elven Notes in Wrath technically is a fetch quest. It just doesn't feel like one as you naturally come across the items as you adventure.
fetch quests would also be less noticeable if like in GW2, you didn't have to run back to turn it in. Also, if I kill X goblins, AND kill the chief, why do I need to go back and kill the respawned chief? Just give me both awards for being smart enough to realise the chief needed killing.
The best version of the party member dying thing is in the suikoden games. Where if you know its coming cause you have played it before, or you grind out enough levels to be strong enough, you can actually prevent the character death in the first place. IE, beat the fight that has the character die in.
Timers are a Catch 22. The issue usually revolves around the story presentation and the the writing. Many games create this sense of urgency from the very beginning, but there actually is no urgency at all in the game. Better writing for pacing out the events and progression of the story makes this a non-issue. The sense of urgency would begin towards the end of a chapter, and small accomplishments throughout the game's story would relieve that urgency for the moment, only for more of the story to reveal itself and create that need for immediacy. You could in this way get rid of timers, by simply creating a funnel-like story structure, where players have all sorts of time to muck around earlier in the story with no major sense of urgency, but over time, funneling the player into an ever narrower story experience until you get to the final moments where there is nothing left to do but the story, so the sense of urgency is natural, not forced.
1. Needing to buff before fight 2. Having to heal after combat 3. Encumbrance 4. Quick time events 5. Mini games puzzles Honorable mention to stealth quests you fail if you are seen
I think the first 3 really add to the immersion in games though. For example I think it would be kinda weird if you just came out of a fight barely alive, not heal, and 5 minutes later you’re fighting again as if you are completely fresh. Just my personal preference though.
I 100% agree about the unappealing nature of card systems! They're weirdly immersion-breaking for me, like they're such a specific mechanic that essentially never ties into the main story. Unless you're making a video game about Gambit, I don't want card mechanics in my action RPG!
Regarding the "game over when main character died", I agree that it can be annoying. However, there's a really simple reason for it: if your main character dies, you can choose to not resurrect them, thus making the game make no sense or even softlock. Imagine your main character in WotR dies somewhere in Kenabras during act 1. You can go on without resurrecting them, all the way up to the end of the act. Then what? Who is placed in charge of the crusde? When a companion dies it's no big deal because if you don't resurrect them, they just don't chime in and don't play a part in the story. But with your main character, this is a problem. An alternative would be to make the main character auto-resurrect at the end of combat, but that's a bit too easy for most games.
Or just make it not be a game over if you have the capability of resurrecting someone and then auto resurrect at the end of the battle using whatever resources are required for it, or force the player to choose how to do that. If you had the option to resurrect but later lose it while the character is still downed then game over.
I don't mind so much the game ending when the MC dies, but I do mind when enemies ignore every other target and prioritize the MC for no apparent reason, which seems to often be the case in the Pathfinder games.
@@RialuCaos The targeting system in PF has nothing to do with who is the main and who isn't. Some enemies like to go for weaker characters in the back, some go for the frontliners. My guess is that you just had a case (or multiple cases) where some enemies priority exactly fit in with your main character and that made you think they were targetting him specifically.
@@ruukinen It's not that easy. Let's say your main dies mid combat, but you have one resurrect scroll in your inventory. By your suggestion, the game could continue and when the battle ends, the game will force you to use that scroll to ressurect your main (or force you to use some other way to resurrect, let's assume for now that the scroll is your only option). But what would happen if during the fight, after your main died, another companion died and you used the scroll on them? You need some mechanism which prevents you from using the scroll during the fight or else we're right where we started (with your main dead and no way to force you to resurrect). I'm not saying it's impossible, but it can be quite tricky and will for sure introduce a lot of work and a lot of bugs. The fact some developers choose to just give you a gameover and make you try again is very understandable from the dev's point of view.
I'm playing FF Tactics on my phone and one of the most annoying party aspects I've come across is : new party members that you had fought as enemies join you at their base class with barely any skills and missing the frickin skills they had previously attacked you with. These turds literally join you one scene after changing alliances and all the sudden they new to battle and now you have to waste time grinding them back up to their npc strength. Wtf
I know someone already said it, but the worst thing I can think of by far, is "durability" of your equipment in any form. Or enemies that destroy your equipment. No, it's not challenging, it's cancerous because people want to actually USE that upgraded equipment they have found or won through battles, not keep it "safe" in their backpacks.
One reason I don't like that main character death thing is because it makes me feel like the rest of my party is less important. It's why I like icewind dale a lot more than the first baldur's gate. I think it would be cool to have a system where you start out with no main character and then your choices in the game kinda narrow it down to someone by the end.
I agree with all of these to varying extents. But putting cards into a non-card game is easily my greatest pet peeve of these, and will keep me from even touching a game.
@@CC-oi9mc If it's avoidable then it's fine, I enjoyed the Witcher 3 while almost never playing Gwent. It's only when it's part of the core gameplay that it becomes a critical issue.
Thank you for the disclaimer at the beginning that you're basically talking about a specific Gerne of video games only. Otherwise I would've said "yeah, try Overcooked without timers".
This video is quite timely for me as I've been kind of fuming about something Wrath of the Righteous did to me when I started a new playthrough this week: I do not like when content is cosed off to me because of a choice I didn't know I was making. Y'know how a particular basement is revealed to you when you have a particular item in your inventory, but only during a particular event? Well I'd forgotten about that; and to be frank, I find that event pretty tedious and didn't want to do it AGAIN right then and there. Also, since you included some Inquisition footage here's something that game reminds me of all the time: I can always do without gathering animations.
"Give me a replacement, that can sort-of fill the spot" ... I honestly only remember Baldur's Gate 2 doing this properly... And that's even incredibly early, that you lose Imoen, but you're given Nalia, who's more or less the same character... She's no Imoen, but she can fill the spot tll Spellhold for sure! :) Always loved that.
My favorite forms of timers are Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask where you can infinitely reset it and try again so it's more about building up an efficient routine and planning your route than to force you to make split second decisions, and Terror missions in the original X-Com/UFO where there is a timer you just can't see it, and when a Terror mission comes up you gotta go ready or not or else your playthrough is basically boned.
I agree with you about everything except for the main character death game over gripe. Consequences are good, and if the game gives you ways to kinda skirt that consequence even better. Persona 5 is a wonderful example for this where eventually you get to a point where party members will take damage for you, even lethal hits, to prevent Joker from dying. An issue I was surprised not to see was escort quests where the NPC only walks. Grinds my gears more than anything.
I never thought strategy games would even attempt adding a random system as the core mechanic for the games. I could see it used as an attack modifier as an alternative to a dexterity based system like paper mario or xenoblade qte bonuses where a few available cards are pulled and you select one to add a buff. Something about accessibility in games... It overall feels like that system would make an already menu dense game, trpgs, more menu dense.
In Gothic 2 there's an interesting fetch quest. A dude asks you to bring him his crossbow, that he left in the forest. There's not really anything special about the quest itself, it's really just going to the described location and grabbing it, then going back, but it's in a location you wouldn't really have any reason to go to at that point of the game, the idea behind the quest is to encourage exploration of a new area.
the fifth is a prime example of why I had issues at first with Final Fantasy 7... the grind to build up Cloud after he is lost, but also losing Aerith meant I had to build up a new healer.
FF7 isn't the best example of this as materia lets you make a character what you want on the fly. Some will be better disposed to some playstyles, but generally I just swap out materia when I switch characters.
@@SilortheBlade You still need to grind the characters up, it's easy to have major level differences. If you don't grind up all to about the same level and utility with the abilities.
@@Mortvent trails games did it better They have a better, more refined version of the materia system and a leveling system that makes sure that charecters don't have major level gaps
In defense of deck building mechanics 1 Strategy Now in games that limit you to one copy of each card, this just boils down to what are my top 10 cards, throw them in a pile call it a day. But if games let you run multiple copies, then you can really start getting into the probability calculating, trying to think of how often you want to be drawing each card etc. Good deck building mechanics can increase the amount of strategy quite a bit 2 Variety As the famous quote goes "players will optimize the fun out of a game." Given the opportunity, once you find a combo that works, executing it exactly the same every encounter becomes quite an easy trap to fall into and can suck the life out of the game. Those hype moments where you draw exactly the card you need are some that I remember for the longest, and it stops you from doing the same thing over and over. You have to adapt to what you've drawn. 3 Cards Make sense From the viewpoint of a new gamer, cards make a lot of sense. Having your abilities tied to a card is easily recognizable, as most people have played monopoly - with its chance cards - or similar. Games with cards that do different things. Having abilities tied to items or buried in skill trees - while certainly not obtuse - lacks the immediate recognition of cards I could write more but this is already a long comment. Im not saying that cards in a game automatically make it better, there are many games that would suffer greatly from card systems, just saying that cards come with a fair amount of advantages
I hate enemies that Level with you. Most of the time games just get too easy then. I want enemies that are hard and if I come later with better stats and Equipment get more easy. That gives a feeling of Power and accomplishment.
Like Oblivion over Morrowind. I remember I was so mad about this. In Morrowind there was just areas I could not visit before I was stronger and I loved that restriction. In Oblivion I could basically speedrun the game without leveling as the enemies was still on my level.
@@Blueynoes Not the biggest fan of any system heavily reliant on level gating in general. And I actively dislike "levels" where they feel an unnecessary mechanic that does nothing but add number bloat on top of the existing subsystems too (i.e. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example of a game that could have been made better by having its "levels" removed entirely from the equation and readjusting other numeric values accordingly).
@@AeonQuasar morrowind still has scaling. It is just that instead of going "bandit - stronger bandit" it goed "Bandit - stronger thing that isn't a bandit". Every area has a table of encounters wich change based on your level. It is just that oblivion has scaling in a very stupid way.
@@Blueynoes wich xenoblade. The one i played the most is x and it hadn't anything of that crap, and in fact it is fairly easy to powerlevel in it if your build ia good.
"Every attack hits but all enemies are damage sponges with a basic wolf having 10,000 HP so you have to wack at it for two minutes like you're armed with a foam sword."
Fetch quests can be ok if instead of bringing them back to the guy w ho gave you the quest, they tell you to deliver what you collected to someone else that's further down the road and where the game wants you to go next anyway. Unfortunately this isn't done often enough.
I remember playing Kingmaker, and in the end of a certain Act, my only healer got whisked away. Ended up hiring a merc of the same class and same leveling, just to substitute him.
Doesn't really apply to RPGs but nothing makes me more frustrated with a game than getting stunlocked by enemies. For RPGs I think the most annoying are "99% of the items you get are shit" and things like "+2% skill critical hit chance" after a level up.
Wow, I have never been so early to one of your videos. Just want to let you know that I greatly enjoy your videos. Quality content. Also have a nice day :)
6) obvious stealth quests that turn out to be kill everything first quests. Usually discovered after spending 20 minutes stealthing to the target, only to be told you haven't killed enough of X to continue.
TBH, I think that forcing shakeups in party composition is actually part of the point of companions bailing on the party or dying due to plot, such that giving a similar-ish replacement person would be counterproductive - although stuff like losing items, or having to use vastly underleveled people because the game doesn't share XP does make it a lot worse. Party based RPGs tend to have way more people than you actually use at once. And they often have relatively long times for a single playthrough, which can make doing extra runs to check out the unused characters unappealing for many. So force joining some NPCs or removing others at various points is a way to drive to the player to experience a wider range of companion story bits, force them to experiment with different party compositions and strategies instead of settling into a working routine, and just makes some sense. I mean, the boardgame Gloomhaven has semi-mandatory retirement for your character. "How do we deal with one person's character retiring and having a replacement with a new class and very different capabilities?" is part of the intended challenge model of the game. Card play based on draws from a deck is often actually another kind of "enforce variation" mechanic since you generally can't repeat the same actions turn to turn.
Pointless difficulty: I don't consider giving higher stats to enemies on higher difficulty as a difficulty settings. It's just annoying and it forces you to cheese. Extra resistances: Giving all late game enemies a lot of resistances so most of your spells/debuffs are useless. Example: Ascended Elemenent in WotR is basically mandatory for every mage class.
For me it's games that give me a grade after missions/levels. **** you game developers I purchased the game because I was interested in playing it not to pretend I'm in school. I don't give a **** about getting an S rank, and if high level items/skills/etc are gated behind high grades I will likely not finish the game at all. Card mechanics are also a hard pass, even if it's a Marvel game made by Firaxis.
On your last one, this happened in The Legend of Dragoon. You lose a character, but they're immediately replaced by another. All they do is change the name, voice, and texture(maybe the animations a bit?) but the level/gear remains. It actually happens twice.
Games where you can't use your abilities and spells outside of combat, meaning you can't prebuff or post-heal. I've played some games where I intentionally skipped turns so I could cast one more heal before the last enemy is defeated.
I think Mass Effect 2 kind of touched on the "timer done right". For those who haven't played, near the end of the game, your crew gets captured by the bad guys after you complete a particular mission. In ME2, there's no in-game clock; rather the game progresses as you complete missions. So if your next mission after the capture is to go straight after your crew, you get to save them all and start the end-game sequence (though if you're not metagaming, chances are you have some incomplete missions that you would have liked to complete). If you do one side mission before saving them, you might lose half. If you do a bunch of side missions before saving them, you lose pretty much your whole crew. I've thought about how to apply this idea to an ideal RPG that tries to convey a sense of urgency. My solution: assign a time value to each sidequest (this may be variable owing to travel time). You have twenty days before the evil lord's army descends on your village, do you spend ten of those days up on Mt. MacGuffin searching for a rare herb to cure the mayor's daughter of lycanthropy, or 15 days trying to rally the neighbouring villages? The time values should be very clear and up front, so that everyone knows exactly which quests they can complete before they're forced to move the plot forward. Anyway, on another note, my least favourite mechanic is the inclusion of powerful consumables that everyone feels the need to save for a rainy day. And when you're finally facing the demon lord on top of a rain-soaked cliff with fate of all creation hanging in the balance, you look at that scroll of demon-slaying you recently acquired and think, "but what if there's a bigger demon after this guy?" I feel like consumables should either degrade over time so that you use them or lose them, or that they're renewable and treated as a sort of loadout before you embark on a journey.
The one instance of a timer I really like is my favorite game Majora’s Mask. It’s really intimidating at first, to have to play a Zelda game with a countdown. Having to do dungeons and such within an allotted time. But in this game being able to see the moon inch closer and closer to the world is really cool and scary as the face just gets closer. And even better is how fluid the npc’s could act on an N64 game. Where a certain npc has to go to work in the morning for example. Or you know a crime takes place at midnight and you can go stop it in real time. I’ve never felt like a timer has been utilized in that creative a way. Because for the most part I agree timers do suck. Especially in a crpg where a lot of the appeal is about taking your time and calculating all your moves
A semi good example for a timer done well could be the first mission in Deus Ex Human Revolution. You have timer for starting the first mission, if it runs out then you don't fail the mission, but the hostages you are supposed to save will be killed. It's good because the game doesn't give you a game over but changes the events a bit, it's not so good because the player because the game has just started and the game hasn't really established the "rules" yet. Most players will just assume that when he is told that he has to hurry is just "flavor" text and there is no actual reason to hurry. A feature I really dislike are QTE's, you have to suddenly react to a random input prompt and if you fail you have to redo them. A game that does them well is "Eve of Extinction" a somewhat generic and mediocre Beat'em up. It has several QTE's however if you fail them you only loose some health, putting you at a slight disadvantage but you move on.
Unrelated to the video, holy cow my man haven't realized you're so close to 100K. Feels like yesterday I saw one a vid about BG3 and RTWP vs TB combat (and we even had a conversation in comments if memory serves right) from a channel with couple hundred subs and views and thinking "this is some good shit". Anyway congrats!
On fetch quests - how'd you rate a fetch quest where you have to gather a dozen of an herb, and then you get the recipe for the restorative made from said herb?
Interesting thoughts on card mechanics. Did you like The Last Remnant? In that game, your party consists of up to 18 characters divided into 5 or fewer groups. Obviously, telling 18 characters exactly what to do every turn would be pretty rough, so you tell each group what to do. Each group has a choice of five general orders (e.g. attack with weapons, defend yourselves, heal that other group, ...) that are determined by the leader's class, the current situation, and some randomness. There are no cards involved, but you do have situations where you want some specific character to cast some specific spell and none of the commands happens to include it.
Good list. Here are the most egregious offenders that I've encountered for each category: 1) Timers: Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. Early on, you gain an ability that massively powers up your character with draconic powers, but you are also given a percentage timer called the Dragon Counter. The Dragon Counter goes up naturally (in 0.01% increments) and when it reaches 100% before beating, you irrevocably transform into a dragon, getting a Game Over and forcing you to restart (as a New Game+). Using your draconic power increases your Dragon Counter, but gives you a massive power boost. This game has its fan base, but this mechanic was a huge turnoff. 2) Card Systems: I have nothing here, as I tend to avoid games that cudgel card systems into non-card system gameplay (though I'll give Baten Kaitos a pass). 3) Fetch Quests: Almost every game that has them. 4) Main character death = game over: Persona 4 Golden. The Press Turn system is a double-edged sword, as both your party and the enemy party can wreak havoc on the other when used correctly (elemental weaknesses) or get screwed when used incorrectly (elemental immunities). When it's the protagonist who is the victim of getting hit by an elemental weakness and the enemy gets extra turns, it's game over. Mix that with a collectable monster system and it's just too much complexity for me to enjoy. 5) Party member leaving: Xenogears. At some point in the second disc, one of the main characters gets taken from you and you never reunite with them ever again. Worst off, they're probably the main offensive caster in the game!
Ironically, one of my most hated mechanics in games is random chance mechanics like you find in a lot of crpgs. As much as I love Wrath of the Righteous, the randomness of the dice rolls does nothing but infuriate me. I'm just thankful that the difficulty is as customizable as it is. Still, save scumming multiple times in a row because my character refuses to roll something better than a one is beyond frustrating.
Imagine playing table top rpg's in general. I'm the player who's always unlucky. Role playing a very cool scene or action only for my rolls telling me "none of that happens because we decided that you suck".
That's just life in general tbh. You can be the best at X in the world and you can still fail if you get unlucky. In tabletop games I have personally rolled a natural 1 like 6-7 times in a row. Different dice, different surface ( table vs tray) and still nothing but 1s
@@wahahabuh I mean yeah life sucks like that sometimes but that's kind of the point of a video game, to get away from all that for a bit. Thank God there isn't an "anxiety attack" mechanic tied to the dice rolls, I definitely don't need that to follow me into a video game lol
@@wahahabuh The problem is 1/20 chance to fail is too high for an expert. 10/100000 electricians die from falling in 2016. This is why I like pathfinder 2e for its degrees of success when rolling.
Agreed with this. It's why I really liked the concept of skill checks in wasteland 3. Not RNG. You either had the skill high enough or you didn't/ Of course it was rather easy to distribute skills so you could do everything at every point in the game, but the concept at least is good.
My number 1: Invincible enemies that you can't do any damage to at all despite having super bad ass weaponry. Bonus negative points if you do tons of damage to them and they suddenly go into an invulnerable state. Fix would be something like what Freespace did to intro the Shivans: You're able to damage them but they have numbers and/or a tech advantage. You can even kill them but it takes so much time and effort that by the time you've done it, the part of the mission you're supposed to fail for narrative reasons has failed but you're left feeling like if you'd had more people/better weapons/more time you could have done it - and now you've got a story reason to continue to improve in order to counter this.
I don't mind if a party member leaves. These games very often have characters with different viewpoints, and the alternative to them leaving would be 'I hate you and everything you're doing, but I'll keep going along with it anyway'. Also I remember this old webcomic on the escapist that had one issue about this gear thing. It was in DA:O and the player had stripped down a character they knew would leave or betray the party, and they didn't want to lose the gear. The joke was 'well small wonder people leave you if you're letting them run around in their underwear, you jerk.'
it's also a really great way to make you FEEL the loss of a person. Problem is when the game encourage staying with the same party comp too much. If your replacement/plan B is as powerful and well equipped, it wouldnt be too big of an issue.
From a game design perspective, losing a party member seems like it could be resolved just by having the entire party gain experience, so that no particular member becomes irreplaceable. I'm not able to think of a negative aspect to this approach.
@@RialuCaos The clash between narrative and gameplay will still be there. it IS a bit silly that the party member who stays in camp all the time levels up as much as the characters who are actually out there killing monsters. Well done Bobby, you cleaned the camp so hard that you're now an expert dragonslayer.
@@r31n0ut I suppose it does introduce that narrative dissonance. Seems like a small price to pay as opposed to the alternative of having invested into a character who is unexpectedly and unavoidably taken away, though.
Loosing party member mechanic is the only mechanic from this list that I really hate. It's the reason why I dropped Wasteland 3. Another mechanic that wasn't mentioned but is annoying is level scalling. Mechanic that cause that any progress is meaningless and getting level is more like punishment always ends up uninstalling the game.
Conceptually I actually really like deck-based battle systems for a specific style of game, but I feel like they work better for action RPGs than CRPGs. The idea would be to make sure your skills aren't _super_ irreplaceable and they more serve to forcibly introduce a little bit of thinking on the fly and some variety to your combos when you'd otherwise spam the same series of special attacks until the enemy dies.
Nr5 Game spellforce 2 did did that in the right manner... There was a main party and 2 or 3 silver slots reserved for temporary party members, even if said member could be with you for most of the game.
About that losing char mechanic, theres this JRPG called Dragon Quest XI that transfers the weapon, skills, classes to another char thats in the party, and the best thing is: they make it in a way that DOES make sense to the story and was such a touching (and sad) scene. I wont spoil it, but if you played it, you'll know who.
Hmmm. Comments 1. Timers - Can be done well if give a generous amount of time and clear outcomes for success or failure. The replacement water chip in fallout 1 is a really good example, it doesn't end the game and it has clearly explained consequences. 2. Cards - Cards belong in card games. 3. Fetch quests - Good as part of a gathering / crafting tutorial or if used in conjunction with other challenges. Example "I am making a fancy dinner plate, I need some dragon scales to finish it, five scales from a red, blue and purple dragon should do it". 4. Main character death game over - Makes sense in some contexts (Baldur's Gate - your soul is claimed the moment you die) 5. Party member removal - Can be annoying but I often find this happens to remove the early game crutch character. To give a sports analogy - Your team needs depth, Not a single superstar player. Things that annoy me Escort quests - I can only think of one escort quest that I can say I enjoyed and that is because it wasn't a quest but an entire game - ICO False morality systems - Sure you murdered heaps of people and embezzled the funds needed to build the orphanage, but at the last moment you made the good choice so you get the good ending. Romances - Maybe I am getting old, but romances in CRPG's seem to be getting worse. Thankfully, it's not Stardew Valley level yet, unless you count handing victims over to Camellia as being similar to giving Penny two melons per week.
Worst rpg mechanic ever for me: spell memorization. Makes no sense (temporarily forgetting spells after use?!), makes you hold on your spellcasters' coolest abilities forever because you don't know what's coming up and forces you on resting even if the rest of the party doesn't need it. Now, this is a DnD thing mostly and a mechanic that it's ok-ish for a pnp game, as in a session of 4 hours you'll probably make 0 to 2 fights; but in the same time in a video game you usually make like 50 fights. This is a problem especially with real-time DnD games and less in turn-based. BG3 for instance has managed somehow to balance these things up. Maybe because of its excessive environment use and pacing between fights, exploration and roleplaying.
Party member leaving is certainly more of a big deal in CRPGs than say most JRPGs. In those, you usually have less complex leveling systems (so you don't plan ahead as much) and many of those games you often have roating party members anyway. So, you are made aware early on that every but the main character/s is only temporary.
Timers, encumbrance/carry capacity, and item durability are ones I don't like. It's a game, I *know* it's a game, I don't want to be bogged down with having to repair gear or manage my inventory because I'm carrying too much.
Gloomhaven has very different card mechanics than what's typically found in games. You start off with all your cards and discard or burn as you go. Each round you pick 2 cards to play, one action and one move. There is some randomness in resting as that will burn a random card in the discard pile and place all the other back in your hand. The objective being to not burn all your cards before the end.
In regards to cards and combat, have you happened to try Gloomhaven(for PC)? It's obviously a "port" of a board game, but I think those particular card mechanics give you a lot of agency and makes decisions very interesting. I think It's a lot more enjoyable if you're playing it with at least one friend, but it's a very cool game mechanically in my opinion.
I've played it, video about it on the channel as well I believe, not really my cup of tea. Card mechanics are a hard sell for me, I admit my own bias on that one.
- When a game is designed for you to explore every nook and cranny for loot and collectibles, and then suddenly expects you to rush through an area ("Quick, we have to go after him, he is getting away!") - When you enter an area and do the most important thing, which is the very reason you came here, last, because you fear that doing it first will make you miss all other things you could do in the area. Edit: I think these can be summarized as "Loot mechanics which destroy the narrative flow of a game." I'm fine with important characters leaving the party. A good game kicks players out of their comfort zone now and then.
For me most "abusive" mechanics is: • Consumables without reasonable way to get more of them. For example in Pathfinder Kingmaker there is no such thing as "Gold income" so every coin you want to spend on more permanent power not on single encounter. It just feel-bad spend same currency on both type of powers. • Inventory weight. I could agree with "gear weight" but I really like Evil Islands inventory where all your "loot" are in special "stash" that you could manage only out of adventure.
Hm. I actually never played this kind of game, but I get a bit curious thanks to your video. As for the annoyance of losing a party member, I think the correct way of doing it is to put some kind of obstacle in your quest which encourage you to switch to another character rather than losing a party member completely. In games I play it usually is done by placing some kind of huge debuff which would make an otherwise small weakness unbearable, and force you to look for a character who does not have this weakness. If this happens not just once but a multiple times, it may encourage you to level your backup characters, while still allowing you to use your main characters but with a huge debuff. Your choice how to deal with it.
It depend. Minagho makes perfect sense. She is an high ranking demons and you are a bunch of low level scrubs. It is like if the company could actually kill the Balrog. Something like Kai Leng sucks.
I grew up in South East Asia and my intro to rpgs were jrpg games. I didn't get to play "western" style games with the DND system until late in my teens or after I moved to the USA. The biggest confusion I had was the "AC" System, Armor Class. For the longest time it didn't make sense to me*, and it still doesn't sometimes (when robed monks have more "AC", than full-plate heavy armor wearers, etc, but thats in the scope of min-maxing). And then there's AC vs Magic too? Touch AC, etc, oh man! *How does an Archer shoot and arrow "not hit" or "miss" a heavy armor/plate armor wearing dude?
I'm actually curious how many of these you definitively don't like regardless of context and how many you don't like because they don't interact well with 100%ing a game during a single playthrought. I use to be pretty negative towards all of these but have recently started appreciating some of them more, mostly because they've started being implemented better (except for the last one, which I just straight up appreciate more from a narrative perspective these days). Timers; I prefer them over the plot hitting pause unless you're advancing it. I find that my immersion breaks a lot easier with the latter these days. It also helps that we have some really good examples of timers being done well. Persona 5 is probably my favourite in terms of a well implemented time system in an RPG (though I do think the game gives you way too much time overall and look forward to eventually playing P4G which I've heard is a lot more restrictive in how much you can do in a single playthrough). Roguelikes probably offer the best form of a timing system and I'm looking forward to more conventional RPGs starting to include exclusionary choices as a rule instead of rarely being present. Card Mechanics; Whether I like this or not heavily depends on how well it's balanced, because if a TRPG dev tries to use chard mechanics without understanding why they work and what makes them exciting it's just going to be a miserable experience for everyone. Loss of party members; This has actually been growing on me a lot more in recent years. I used to hate it and still don't like it all that much, but I appreciate it from a gameplay perspective. There's very little a game can do to make you feel as powerless as taking one of your characters away permanently and when the narrative calls for it, it can be brutally effective. I much prefer how Trails in the Sky did it though. There you had the two main characters and a cast of supporting characters the joined up and left as their own stories intersected with yours. This primed you to be ready for characters to leave and it also means the game what very definitively built around the fact that you're going to be playing with a rotating party composition throughout.
I guess it's not a mechanic exactly, but one of my least favorite things to deal with in RPGs is the very boring tutorial area before you get to the good stuff. I think about the two Knights of the Old Republic games, which are both great, but had really tedious starting areas where you didn't have cool abilities and you didn't get a lightsaber until way later! I understand games like to ease you into the action and teach you the ropes, but there's got to be a way to make that more fun.
For me its these: 1. Weapon/armour degradation 2. Wonky save systems. A lack of auto saves for instance. 3. Useing a tiny inventory 4. Loot/item bloat 5. Swimming 6. Filler quests and general inflation of game time
Mandatory options. The game gives you options for stuff like abilities and dialogue choices, but if you don't take certain ones it basically makes the game either unplayable later on or instantly causes you to lose the game.
A game mechanic I really dislike in many C-RPG is the mandatory pre-emptive buffing before each combat. Instead of buffs being meaningful choices you have to make during combat in reaction to the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, the game is balanced so your party is always weaker and outnumbered and you just have to do heavy preparation before each encounter. It is a huge time sink and encourages save scumming.
"... and encourages save scumming."
As Jerry Seinfeld would say, "Not that there is anything wrong with that!" 😜
Pathfinder be like
@@CidGuerreiro1234 It's a staple of DnD and Pathfinder games indeed. That and the rogue having to open the way at reduced speed to detect traps, makes me wary of TTRPG adaptations into video games.
This was what came to mind when I saw the title
That's one of the reasons I can't get into Pathfinder games.
Having a persuasion system that is integrated into quest and story lines yet everyone and their mothers keep trying to talk to a party member in the back of the group without it instead of the one who is speced for it(Divinity 2). This influences you to almost always make your main character a persuasion build which tends to make them weaker or less effective elsewhere.
It is more Larian thing, cause same shit is in BG3, when npc stars conversation not with your character, but with the closet to npc (khem, auntie ellie fight, khem). Espiacialy suck, cause your long range sorcerer never gets that ability +1 :)
The worst example of this is Pathfinder kingmaker, where I felt like I had to play as a charisma based character, because I'm the king.
Now I know it's not necessary, you can still put enough points into persuasion without being charisma based, and playing sorcerer was probably the best choice for me. Its still annoying.
@@MrEvilside I really wish rpgs would stop making you prioritize physical vs mental/psychological stats. I can see maybe a shared pool for intelligence, wisdom and charisma but how you swing a sword or dodge shouldnt cut into how well you talk to someone.
100% this. Devs should just allow the whole party to participate in the dialogue - they are standing RIGHT THERE :D It's illogical that the silver tongue character of the party would just stand around while a situation escalates right in front of him. Or if that's difficult mechanically then the persuasion stats should just be shared from the highest character and let our imaginations fill in the gaps that the persuasion character was the one who answered.
@@bluehornet632 I feel like if you created two separate pools like that you would wind up with the same result. It would still be a situation where your character is very wise and strong, but is very stupid and clumsy. I think it's mostly a balance thing: if every character can be good with physical and mental abilities, they start to lose their individuality. I think the best fix for this would be a manual option to select your party's "speaker".
One thing on the last point; in some cases I think party members should absolutely leave the party when players decisions are completely at odds with them. Seelah in Wotr is outrageously accepting for some of the PC decisions.
@@tjep2670 yeah for sure. By contrast if you play BG2 Keldorn the paly will not stand for any mischief.
@@Moosenthusiast Keldorn Will also murder Viconia if you have both of them in the same party for too long. There are some other party member conflicts as well.
-"Five game mechanics that I HATE and MUST BE DESTROYED!"- I really appreciate your videos and the format. And I really appreciate the format that you *don't* use :D
YES! I find myself actively resisting clickbait. No gimmicky BS with Mortismal
My favorite example of "timer done right" in Kingmaker is actually in Act 1.
You have three months to achieve the first major goal of your campaign (getting rid of the robber baron) which is way, WAY more than you'll ever need for it even at a snail pace, but if you manage to do it under a month (which is STILL enough to explore every single area and cover 100% of the game content up to that point, if you keep a brisk pace and don't waste too much time resting more than necessary) you'll get a HEFTY extra reward in the shape of the best +2 Dueling Sword available in Act1 (and for a good portion of Act 2).
So we have: strong incentive to not abuse the resting system, strong incentive to not overload your inventory so you can travel light and fast, a deadline that is still reasonably challenging without being too punishing, a very tasty reward to compensate you for the effort. NAILED, Owlcat.
Too bad other examples in the same game weren't just as good.
I actually think most (not all) of thr other timers are perfectly fine. It's just that the game works kinda the opposite of what typical RPG players expect. Usually in a typical RPG you do every single side quest first and then you do the main quest. PF:K works the other way around you beeline the main quest then spend the extra time exploring and doing side quests
Timers aren't that bad in themselves in Kingmaker, but information on the timers is quite poor. Not playing for a while and coming back after one month just to f*** up a quest because you didn't remember this specific timer among 20 active quests is very very annoying.
Lets not start about secret timers then..
@@quint3ssent1a That is the part of the timer system that I can see complaint about. The issue with the regular timers is, as @okagisama noted, it's just backwards what Bioware/Obsidian players expect. They expect a priority quest to mean, "So important I do it last." Whereas Owlcat expects you to do the timer item first, and if you do it expeditiously, you have plenty of time for all the exploration stuff after.
But the 45-60 day timers on some of the card events, in a game that loves to throw you 3-4 events at the same counselor in a month anyway, is terrible. And why I won't shame anyone for a quicker event resolution mod.
@@wahahabuh same, I enjoyed the timers since it feels better when you optimize for better times
The best timer mechanics are in Kingdom Come. You take a quest, there is no visible timer anywhere, you go sleep, you wake up and the quest "fails" because some NPC died on a timer 😆.
Totally agree on the card mechanic! I hate strategy with too much random things in it.
My biggest pet peeve is games that have a clearly defined rule system, and then enemies that operate outside of that system for no lore reason. Having more/stacking buffs in ways that aren’t allowed is a big offender, as is the “casts one spell that places like 30 buffs on them simultaneously after you went to the trouble of getting the drop on them”
One that i HATE is in Underrail you have a set numbers of "tiles" you can see, let's say for example 15, this number CANNOT be changed nor can you target anything outside of that range even if you make a Sniper build with a scope, the number stays 15. Welp this rules does not apply to enemies NPCs Snipers who can safely target you from outside of your "Vision" and beyond 15 tiles even when they are using the same exact weapons as you and character build, this is worst in the Expedition expansion where enemies with crossbows can target you with poison bolts and flee if you get too close. Underrail is still a super fun game thought.
Bosses that take a turn after each of your characters' turn in the same round. 😬
@@LordShrub I think that a lot of these boil down to artificial difficulty. Rather than make difficulty scale appropriately and within canon, they just add enemies, make enemies that are "stone walls" or "glass cannons", or who can violate the apparent rules of the game.
I would even chalk up half of the things that Mortismal mentioned as being just largely artificial difficulty modifiers. There are more elegant ways of accomplishing the task, but there is no denying that the methods work. It's just the inner craftsman in us insisting that there has to be a better way.
Yep - or when you aren't allowed to cast spells on the enemies out of line of sight, or enemies who moved too far away from you while you were channeling the spell - yet the NPC doesn't give a crap about spell physics like that.
@@LordShrub I was going to comment the same thing, thinking about the Alien Bosses in Xcom 2
I swear they NEVER playtested those
1- Durability mechanics.
2- Fetch quests
3- " choices " when they don't matter, if they don't matter anyway I would rather have no choice.
Edit: 4- almost forgot inventory management in general ( looking at you GW2 -_- ).
What’s wrong about GW2 inventory?
5- When your guy is treated like crap by npcs and your reputation means nothing.
6- When npcs are suicidal and will fight you because of the script.
Yeah botw durability is irritating. Witcher 3 durability was kind of annoying because all you had to do was use a hammer and your done. It's just not a good mechanic.
@@FernandoIncetta It takes very long time for new players to start getting space in their inventory.
And 90% of the time needs to buy more bank slots and more material storage just to get going.
I still have to sell and keep managing inventory after doing few metas.
Don't get me wrong I love gw2, But I don't like the amount of time I am spending managing my inventory, that is a part of the game I do not enjoy.
@@Hsneen you can get 100 slots pretty quickly though? Most things you get while leveling up needs to be salvaged anyway. But I do agree that the various events and meta ends up adding a lot of stuff
I never buy bankslot, new character slot is better value for money when it comes to storage
Having played a lot of WoW Classic recently, there's one that comes to mind. When you get a quest to go somewhere and kill 10 wolves, you come back to turn it in, an THEN you get another quest to go back to the same place and kill 10 spiders. Just give me both quest at the same time ffs. (Yes I'm talking about you, Barren Harpies.)
I like timers in *theory*, but almost never in practice. I loved the 3 day cycle in Majoras Mask, but I guess it doesn't really count since the cycle will just restart every time.
In theory it simulates the world going around with or without your character. In practice, it's always better to build a whole system instead of using timers, like early Elder Scrolls games, Fable and Kenshi do. The problem with that is the amount of resources needed to build a decent simulation, it must be a central part of the game to justify the budget and it will still be limited by the state of technology (AI and processing power) .
And that's a bit saddening to see that, despite the powerful computers we have nowadays, big RPG companies don't try to go for that "simulating a living world" dream any more.
I love how timers are implemented in Kingdom Come: Deliverance. I don't want to spoil anything if you haven't played it yet but they boil down to plot changes and minor reprimands but the story keeps going in your absence.
A great example.
Card mechanics are almost always a deal breaker for me. So glad you called that out.
for me it's stealth missions in action adventures like Spider-Man and taking your powers away midgame to force you into completely different gameplay and mechanics (looking at the FF15 jumpscare sequence with Noctis)
yes, they are overlapping
That part of Final Fantasy 15 was actually when I started liking it. I like a change of playstyle midway through a game. Unless its a sports game.... F**k FFX's blitzball
@@ShikaStyle123 goes to show how different taste can be :D
for me it's a cardinal sin to have a game build around certain mechanics/playstyles and then forcing the player into something new for whatever reason.
going with the Final Fantasy 15 example: I played maybe 50 hours of awesome combat and loved it. if I truly had wanted a game with jumpscares and making me feel powerless, well I'd have bought a horror survival game :D
@@ShikaStyle123 I think I'm the only person on Earth who actually liked Blitzball back then.
The one thing I absolutely hate in open world games and rpgs are patronizing, idiotic a.i companions. The kind of companions that constantly yell at you to 'shoot something', 'get moving' or 'attack', meanwhile they sit on their ass and don't do shit! Forced stealth needs to disappear forever too!
Leveling inactive party memebers should be standard by now so as to avoid the issue of leaving party memebers. Not leveling them just encourages you to dig deeper into the hole you're already digging yourself into and keep using the same characters.
Nice list! My top 3 most hated rpg features are:
1. Enemy level scaling
2. Cookie cutter open worlds (towers and everything)
3. Essential characters that you are prohibited from killing
I actually liked how the timer was implemented in one specific quest in Kingmaker too. That's the one with the barbarians and the cursed sword. If you take too long, you get a slightly different potential outcome and lose the option to recruit him. It doesn't feel lie a binary succeed/fail but instead like the story has just changed.
1. Over-use of cut-scenes.
2. Scripted events where you die regardless of what you do.
3. Pointless and over-use of loot items leading to excessive inventory management.
4. Tedious dialogue especially in most JRPGs.
5. Tedious bosses that eventually die... and then come alive again!
6. Escort quests with "gotcha mechanics" right at the end.
7. Ambiguous stats that make it hard to tell which weapon / armour to use.
8. Excessive / over-use of backtracking.
9. Putting points into a certain build, realising it's trash and not being able to respec.
10. Badly designed checkpoints that make you do the really tricky part after ages doing the easy bits.
i feel like fetch quests can be extremly fun if done right, for example in cyberpunk 2077 many of the gigs are :enter a place, steal something and get out, but the fact that you visit so many unique locations, got at least context for eqch one and can aproach thrm in so many different ways makes it extremly fun, or in stalker where, with the ai its never predictable, you never know whats going to happen on your way there and back, but if its strictly pick something and come back then yes its totally shit
Hey someone saying a nice thing about cyberpunk. Fwiw I do agree, context can make the most irritating video game things not bad.
I always think of GTA IV for this.
I know I'm an oddball with this, but the timers in Kingmaker were super immersive for me. Most of my lack of hatred for those timers specifically (I agree with you on most other implementations) was figuring out how absolutely generous they were. As long as you weren't resting between every combat, and purposefully dawdling, you could wrap everything up and still have a long time between acts. I don't know about the hardest difficulty, but on core I never really had issues. It even created some spicy roleplay scenarios in the Season of Bloom chapter.
Even on the hardest you have plenty of time. I remember how stress I was in the first act for the timer and then almost played the rest of the game as if it wasn't there xD
Yeah, I hear a lot of people complain about Kingmaker’s timer, but it is INSANELY generous the entire game. More annoying honestly was how it felt like the kingdom would start ‘crumbling’ at the drop of a hat, with little in the ways to stop it (specifically early on). I love that damn game.
There's a Trpg on the PSP (spectral souls) that when they take a couple party members away they give you PP (points to put in stats;STR, VIT etc) based on the level of the character that left. Really good way to do it imo.
Do they die or do they come back later?
@@Azure9577 one dies, 2 are (minor) villains the whole time
I feel like card-mechanics in lieu of a traditional combat system is relatively quirky and interesting idea that has been MASSIVELY over-used by indie developers recently - a cool idea that becomes a little less cool every time it's implemented, especially when it's implemented poorly.
When you mentioned fetch quests - I just realized that the Elven Notes in Wrath technically is a fetch quest. It just doesn't feel like one as you naturally come across the items as you adventure.
fetch quests would also be less noticeable if like in GW2, you didn't have to run back to turn it in. Also, if I kill X goblins, AND kill the chief, why do I need to go back and kill the respawned chief? Just give me both awards for being smart enough to realise the chief needed killing.
Very nice to have the bookmarks! I like these "things I love/hate/... videos"
The best version of the party member dying thing is in the suikoden games. Where if you know its coming cause you have played it before, or you grind out enough levels to be strong enough, you can actually prevent the character death in the first place. IE, beat the fight that has the character die in.
Timers are a Catch 22. The issue usually revolves around the story presentation and the the writing. Many games create this sense of urgency from the very beginning, but there actually is no urgency at all in the game. Better writing for pacing out the events and progression of the story makes this a non-issue. The sense of urgency would begin towards the end of a chapter, and small accomplishments throughout the game's story would relieve that urgency for the moment, only for more of the story to reveal itself and create that need for immediacy.
You could in this way get rid of timers, by simply creating a funnel-like story structure, where players have all sorts of time to muck around earlier in the story with no major sense of urgency, but over time, funneling the player into an ever narrower story experience until you get to the final moments where there is nothing left to do but the story, so the sense of urgency is natural, not forced.
1. Needing to buff before fight
2. Having to heal after combat
3. Encumbrance
4. Quick time events
5. Mini games puzzles
Honorable mention to stealth quests you fail if you are seen
I think the first 3 really add to the immersion in games though. For example I think it would be kinda weird if you just came out of a fight barely alive, not heal, and 5 minutes later you’re fighting again as if you are completely fresh.
Just my personal preference though.
I 100% agree about the unappealing nature of card systems! They're weirdly immersion-breaking for me, like they're such a specific mechanic that essentially never ties into the main story.
Unless you're making a video game about Gambit, I don't want card mechanics in my action RPG!
Regarding the "game over when main character died", I agree that it can be annoying. However, there's a really simple reason for it: if your main character dies, you can choose to not resurrect them, thus making the game make no sense or even softlock. Imagine your main character in WotR dies somewhere in Kenabras during act 1. You can go on without resurrecting them, all the way up to the end of the act. Then what? Who is placed in charge of the crusde? When a companion dies it's no big deal because if you don't resurrect them, they just don't chime in and don't play a part in the story. But with your main character, this is a problem. An alternative would be to make the main character auto-resurrect at the end of combat, but that's a bit too easy for most games.
Or just make it not be a game over if you have the capability of resurrecting someone and then auto resurrect at the end of the battle using whatever resources are required for it, or force the player to choose how to do that. If you had the option to resurrect but later lose it while the character is still downed then game over.
I don't mind so much the game ending when the MC dies, but I do mind when enemies ignore every other target and prioritize the MC for no apparent reason, which seems to often be the case in the Pathfinder games.
@@RialuCaos In those cases yeah it kinda limits how you can build your main character which is a drag.
@@RialuCaos The targeting system in PF has nothing to do with who is the main and who isn't. Some enemies like to go for weaker characters in the back, some go for the frontliners. My guess is that you just had a case (or multiple cases) where some enemies priority exactly fit in with your main character and that made you think they were targetting him specifically.
@@ruukinen It's not that easy. Let's say your main dies mid combat, but you have one resurrect scroll in your inventory. By your suggestion, the game could continue and when the battle ends, the game will force you to use that scroll to ressurect your main (or force you to use some other way to resurrect, let's assume for now that the scroll is your only option). But what would happen if during the fight, after your main died, another companion died and you used the scroll on them? You need some mechanism which prevents you from using the scroll during the fight or else we're right where we started (with your main dead and no way to force you to resurrect).
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it can be quite tricky and will for sure introduce a lot of work and a lot of bugs. The fact some developers choose to just give you a gameover and make you try again is very understandable from the dev's point of view.
The last one: Will we ever see Keifer again? (DQ VII) Done exceptionally well.
You forgot "buff stacking ". Rest, cast 20 buffs, kill something, repeat.
I'm playing FF Tactics on my phone and one of the most annoying party aspects I've come across is : new party members that you had fought as enemies join you at their base class with barely any skills and missing the frickin skills they had previously attacked you with. These turds literally join you one scene after changing alliances and all the sudden they new to battle and now you have to waste time grinding them back up to their npc strength. Wtf
I know someone already said it, but the worst thing I can think of by far, is "durability" of your equipment in any form.
Or enemies that destroy your equipment. No, it's not challenging, it's cancerous because people want to actually USE that upgraded equipment they have found or won through battles, not keep it "safe" in their backpacks.
One reason I don't like that main character death thing is because it makes me feel like the rest of my party is less important. It's why I like icewind dale a lot more than the first baldur's gate. I think it would be cool to have a system where you start out with no main character and then your choices in the game kinda narrow it down to someone by the end.
I agree with all of these to varying extents. But putting cards into a non-card game is easily my greatest pet peeve of these, and will keep me from even touching a game.
@@CC-oi9mc If it's avoidable then it's fine, I enjoyed the Witcher 3 while almost never playing Gwent. It's only when it's part of the core gameplay that it becomes a critical issue.
Thank you for the disclaimer at the beginning that you're basically talking about a specific Gerne of video games only. Otherwise I would've said "yeah, try Overcooked without timers".
This video is quite timely for me as I've been kind of fuming about something Wrath of the Righteous did to me when I started a new playthrough this week: I do not like when content is cosed off to me because of a choice I didn't know I was making. Y'know how a particular basement is revealed to you when you have a particular item in your inventory, but only during a particular event? Well I'd forgotten about that; and to be frank, I find that event pretty tedious and didn't want to do it AGAIN right then and there.
Also, since you included some Inquisition footage here's something that game reminds me of all the time: I can always do without gathering animations.
Ah, you prefer the "loot magnet" option, then. Just walk by, maybe hold down a key, and the loot flies into your back-mounted portable warehouse!
@@ZlothZloth yeah we pretty much all prefer that..
"Give me a replacement, that can sort-of fill the spot" ... I honestly only remember Baldur's Gate 2 doing this properly... And that's even incredibly early, that you lose Imoen, but you're given Nalia, who's more or less the same character... She's no Imoen, but she can fill the spot tll Spellhold for sure! :) Always loved that.
"Fetch quests!"
Me : yeah like Dragon Age Inquisition
* video shows Dragon Age Inquisition footage*
Me : That tracks.
My favorite forms of timers are Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask where you can infinitely reset it and try again so it's more about building up an efficient routine and planning your route than to force you to make split second decisions, and Terror missions in the original X-Com/UFO where there is a timer you just can't see it, and when a Terror mission comes up you gotta go ready or not or else your playthrough is basically boned.
Spot on thank you so much for the video!
I agree with you about everything except for the main character death game over gripe. Consequences are good, and if the game gives you ways to kinda skirt that consequence even better. Persona 5 is a wonderful example for this where eventually you get to a point where party members will take damage for you, even lethal hits, to prevent Joker from dying.
An issue I was surprised not to see was escort quests where the NPC only walks. Grinds my gears more than anything.
I never thought strategy games would even attempt adding a random system as the core mechanic for the games.
I could see it used as an attack modifier as an alternative to a dexterity based system like paper mario or xenoblade qte bonuses where a few available cards are pulled and you select one to add a buff. Something about accessibility in games...
It overall feels like that system would make an already menu dense game, trpgs, more menu dense.
In Gothic 2 there's an interesting fetch quest. A dude asks you to bring him his crossbow, that he left in the forest. There's not really anything special about the quest itself, it's really just going to the described location and grabbing it, then going back, but it's in a location you wouldn't really have any reason to go to at that point of the game, the idea behind the quest is to encourage exploration of a new area.
the fifth is a prime example of why I had issues at first with Final Fantasy 7... the grind to build up Cloud after he is lost, but also losing Aerith meant I had to build up a new healer.
FF7 isn't the best example of this as materia lets you make a character what you want on the fly. Some will be better disposed to some playstyles, but generally I just swap out materia when I switch characters.
@@SilortheBlade You still need to grind the characters up, it's easy to have major level differences. If you don't grind up all to about the same level and utility with the abilities.
@@Mortvent trails games did it better
They have a better, more refined version of the materia system and a leveling system that makes sure that charecters don't have major level gaps
THE ONE WHERE A PARTY MEMBER LEAVES AND TAKES THEIR GEAR WITH THEM AND IT WAS SOME OF THE BEST GEAR AND YOU NEED IT TO NAKE THE END LEVEL GEAR OMG
In defense of deck building mechanics
1 Strategy
Now in games that limit you to one copy of each card, this just boils down to what are my top 10 cards, throw them in a pile call it a day. But if games let you run multiple copies, then you can really start getting into the probability calculating, trying to think of how often you want to be drawing each card etc. Good deck building mechanics can increase the amount of strategy quite a bit
2 Variety
As the famous quote goes "players will optimize the fun out of a game." Given the opportunity, once you find a combo that works, executing it exactly the same every encounter becomes quite an easy trap to fall into and can suck the life out of the game. Those hype moments where you draw exactly the card you need are some that I remember for the longest, and it stops you from doing the same thing over and over. You have to adapt to what you've drawn.
3 Cards Make sense
From the viewpoint of a new gamer, cards make a lot of sense. Having your abilities tied to a card is easily recognizable, as most people have played monopoly - with its chance cards - or similar. Games with cards that do different things. Having abilities tied to items or buried in skill trees - while certainly not obtuse - lacks the immediate recognition of cards
I could write more but this is already a long comment. Im not saying that cards in a game automatically make it better, there are many games that would suffer greatly from card systems, just saying that cards come with a fair amount of advantages
I hate enemies that Level with you. Most of the time games just get too easy then. I want enemies that are hard and if I come later with better stats and Equipment get more easy. That gives a feeling of Power and accomplishment.
Like Oblivion over Morrowind. I remember I was so mad about this. In Morrowind there was just areas I could not visit before I was stronger and I loved that restriction. In Oblivion I could basically speedrun the game without leveling as the enemies was still on my level.
@@Blueynoes Not the biggest fan of any system heavily reliant on level gating in general. And I actively dislike "levels" where they feel an unnecessary mechanic that does nothing but add number bloat on top of the existing subsystems too (i.e. The Witcher 3 is a perfect example of a game that could have been made better by having its "levels" removed entirely from the equation and readjusting other numeric values accordingly).
Needs a bit of a mix of both so that some areas are consistently challenging when you're really high level IMO
@@AeonQuasar morrowind still has scaling. It is just that instead of going "bandit - stronger bandit" it goed "Bandit - stronger thing that isn't a bandit". Every area has a table of encounters wich change based on your level. It is just that oblivion has scaling in a very stupid way.
@@Blueynoes wich xenoblade. The one i played the most is x and it hadn't anything of that crap, and in fact it is fairly easy to powerlevel in it if your build ia good.
"Every attack hits but all enemies are damage sponges with a basic wolf having 10,000 HP so you have to wack at it for two minutes like you're armed with a foam sword."
Fetch quests can be ok if instead of bringing them back to the guy w ho gave you the quest, they tell you to deliver what you collected to someone else that's further down the road and where the game wants you to go next anyway. Unfortunately this isn't done often enough.
I remember playing Kingmaker, and in the end of a certain Act, my only healer got whisked away. Ended up hiring a merc of the same class and same leveling, just to substitute him.
Doesn't really apply to RPGs but nothing makes me more frustrated with a game than getting stunlocked by enemies.
For RPGs I think the most annoying are "99% of the items you get are shit" and things like "+2% skill critical hit chance" after a level up.
I laughed when you got to "Fetch Quests" and the footage immediately changed to Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Wow, I have never been so early to one of your videos. Just want to let you know that I greatly enjoy your videos. Quality content. Also have a nice day :)
The fetch quests aren't about the McGuffins - they're about the journey. The real treasure is the friends u make along the way.
NPC: Ah, you're the famous Warrior of the Light, yes? Can you help me pick up some mushrooms for my soup? About 15 will do, thaaank you!
6) obvious stealth quests that turn out to be kill everything first quests. Usually discovered after spending 20 minutes stealthing to the target, only to be told you haven't killed enough of X to continue.
TBH, I think that forcing shakeups in party composition is actually part of the point of companions bailing on the party or dying due to plot, such that giving a similar-ish replacement person would be counterproductive - although stuff like losing items, or having to use vastly underleveled people because the game doesn't share XP does make it a lot worse. Party based RPGs tend to have way more people than you actually use at once. And they often have relatively long times for a single playthrough, which can make doing extra runs to check out the unused characters unappealing for many. So force joining some NPCs or removing others at various points is a way to drive to the player to experience a wider range of companion story bits, force them to experiment with different party compositions and strategies instead of settling into a working routine, and just makes some sense.
I mean, the boardgame Gloomhaven has semi-mandatory retirement for your character. "How do we deal with one person's character retiring and having a replacement with a new class and very different capabilities?" is part of the intended challenge model of the game.
Card play based on draws from a deck is often actually another kind of "enforce variation" mechanic since you generally can't repeat the same actions turn to turn.
Pointless difficulty: I don't consider giving higher stats to enemies on higher difficulty as a difficulty settings. It's just annoying and it forces you to cheese.
Extra resistances: Giving all late game enemies a lot of resistances so most of your spells/debuffs are useless. Example: Ascended Elemenent in WotR is basically mandatory for every mage class.
For me it's games that give me a grade after missions/levels. **** you game developers I purchased the game because I was interested in playing it not to pretend I'm in school.
I don't give a **** about getting an S rank, and if high level items/skills/etc are gated behind high grades I will likely not finish the game at all.
Card mechanics are also a hard pass, even if it's a Marvel game made by Firaxis.
“Fetch quests” and footage from the Hinterlands was a better pairing than cheese and wine.
On your last one, this happened in The Legend of Dragoon. You lose a character, but they're immediately replaced by another. All they do is change the name, voice, and texture(maybe the animations a bit?) but the level/gear remains. It actually happens twice.
But whoever uses Shana/Miranda anyway? XD (ok, they have awesome Dragoon magic, but takes forever to level up because they have no additions).
Games where you can't use your abilities and spells outside of combat, meaning you can't prebuff or post-heal.
I've played some games where I intentionally skipped turns so I could cast one more heal before the last enemy is defeated.
For losing a party member, in the game "The Last Remnant" they did it nicely done !
I think Mass Effect 2 kind of touched on the "timer done right". For those who haven't played, near the end of the game, your crew gets captured by the bad guys after you complete a particular mission. In ME2, there's no in-game clock; rather the game progresses as you complete missions. So if your next mission after the capture is to go straight after your crew, you get to save them all and start the end-game sequence (though if you're not metagaming, chances are you have some incomplete missions that you would have liked to complete). If you do one side mission before saving them, you might lose half. If you do a bunch of side missions before saving them, you lose pretty much your whole crew.
I've thought about how to apply this idea to an ideal RPG that tries to convey a sense of urgency. My solution: assign a time value to each sidequest (this may be variable owing to travel time). You have twenty days before the evil lord's army descends on your village, do you spend ten of those days up on Mt. MacGuffin searching for a rare herb to cure the mayor's daughter of lycanthropy, or 15 days trying to rally the neighbouring villages? The time values should be very clear and up front, so that everyone knows exactly which quests they can complete before they're forced to move the plot forward.
Anyway, on another note, my least favourite mechanic is the inclusion of powerful consumables that everyone feels the need to save for a rainy day. And when you're finally facing the demon lord on top of a rain-soaked cliff with fate of all creation hanging in the balance, you look at that scroll of demon-slaying you recently acquired and think, "but what if there's a bigger demon after this guy?" I feel like consumables should either degrade over time so that you use them or lose them, or that they're renewable and treated as a sort of loadout before you embark on a journey.
The one instance of a timer I really like is my favorite game Majora’s Mask. It’s really intimidating at first, to have to play a Zelda game with a countdown. Having to do dungeons and such within an allotted time.
But in this game being able to see the moon inch closer and closer to the world is really cool and scary as the face just gets closer.
And even better is how fluid the npc’s could act on an N64 game. Where a certain npc has to go to work in the morning for example. Or you know a crime takes place at midnight and you can go stop it in real time. I’ve never felt like a timer has been utilized in that creative a way. Because for the most part I agree timers do suck. Especially in a crpg where a lot of the appeal is about taking your time and calculating all your moves
I'll play devil's advocate and say the baby shark timed quest leaves a sour taste in my mouth, just irritating.
A semi good example for a timer done well could be the first mission in Deus Ex Human Revolution. You have timer for starting the first mission, if it runs out then you don't fail the mission, but the hostages you are supposed to save will be killed. It's good because the game doesn't give you a game over but changes the events a bit, it's not so good because the player because the game has just started and the game hasn't really established the "rules" yet. Most players will just assume that when he is told that he has to hurry is just "flavor" text and there is no actual reason to hurry.
A feature I really dislike are QTE's, you have to suddenly react to a random input prompt and if you fail you have to redo them. A game that does them well is "Eve of Extinction" a somewhat generic and mediocre Beat'em up. It has several QTE's however if you fail them you only loose some health, putting you at a slight disadvantage but you move on.
Unrelated to the video, holy cow my man haven't realized you're so close to 100K. Feels like yesterday I saw one a vid about BG3 and RTWP vs TB combat (and we even had a conversation in comments if memory serves right) from a channel with couple hundred subs and views and thinking "this is some good shit". Anyway congrats!
On fetch quests - how'd you rate a fetch quest where you have to gather a dozen of an herb, and then you get the recipe for the restorative made from said herb?
Interesting thoughts on card mechanics. Did you like The Last Remnant? In that game, your party consists of up to 18 characters divided into 5 or fewer groups. Obviously, telling 18 characters exactly what to do every turn would be pretty rough, so you tell each group what to do. Each group has a choice of five general orders (e.g. attack with weapons, defend yourselves, heal that other group, ...) that are determined by the leader's class, the current situation, and some randomness. There are no cards involved, but you do have situations where you want some specific character to cast some specific spell and none of the commands happens to include it.
Good list. Here are the most egregious offenders that I've encountered for each category:
1) Timers: Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter. Early on, you gain an ability that massively powers up your character with draconic powers, but you are also given a percentage timer called the Dragon Counter. The Dragon Counter goes up naturally (in 0.01% increments) and when it reaches 100% before beating, you irrevocably transform into a dragon, getting a Game Over and forcing you to restart (as a New Game+). Using your draconic power increases your Dragon Counter, but gives you a massive power boost. This game has its fan base, but this mechanic was a huge turnoff.
2) Card Systems: I have nothing here, as I tend to avoid games that cudgel card systems into non-card system gameplay (though I'll give Baten Kaitos a pass).
3) Fetch Quests: Almost every game that has them.
4) Main character death = game over: Persona 4 Golden. The Press Turn system is a double-edged sword, as both your party and the enemy party can wreak havoc on the other when used correctly (elemental weaknesses) or get screwed when used incorrectly (elemental immunities). When it's the protagonist who is the victim of getting hit by an elemental weakness and the enemy gets extra turns, it's game over. Mix that with a collectable monster system and it's just too much complexity for me to enjoy.
5) Party member leaving: Xenogears. At some point in the second disc, one of the main characters gets taken from you and you never reunite with them ever again. Worst off, they're probably the main offensive caster in the game!
Ironically, one of my most hated mechanics in games is random chance mechanics like you find in a lot of crpgs. As much as I love Wrath of the Righteous, the randomness of the dice rolls does nothing but infuriate me. I'm just thankful that the difficulty is as customizable as it is. Still, save scumming multiple times in a row because my character refuses to roll something better than a one is beyond frustrating.
Imagine playing table top rpg's in general.
I'm the player who's always unlucky. Role playing a very cool scene or action only for my rolls telling me "none of that happens because we decided that you suck".
That's just life in general tbh. You can be the best at X in the world and you can still fail if you get unlucky.
In tabletop games I have personally rolled a natural 1 like 6-7 times in a row. Different dice, different surface ( table vs tray) and still nothing but 1s
@@wahahabuh I mean yeah life sucks like that sometimes but that's kind of the point of a video game, to get away from all that for a bit. Thank God there isn't an "anxiety attack" mechanic tied to the dice rolls, I definitely don't need that to follow me into a video game lol
@@wahahabuh The problem is 1/20 chance to fail is too high for an expert. 10/100000 electricians die from falling in 2016. This is why I like pathfinder 2e for its degrees of success when rolling.
Agreed with this. It's why I really liked the concept of skill checks in wasteland 3. Not RNG. You either had the skill high enough or you didn't/
Of course it was rather easy to distribute skills so you could do everything at every point in the game, but the concept at least is good.
My number 1: Invincible enemies that you can't do any damage to at all despite having super bad ass weaponry. Bonus negative points if you do tons of damage to them and they suddenly go into an invulnerable state.
Fix would be something like what Freespace did to intro the Shivans: You're able to damage them but they have numbers and/or a tech advantage. You can even kill them but it takes so much time and effort that by the time you've done it, the part of the mission you're supposed to fail for narrative reasons has failed but you're left feeling like if you'd had more people/better weapons/more time you could have done it - and now you've got a story reason to continue to improve in order to counter this.
I don't mind if a party member leaves. These games very often have characters with different viewpoints, and the alternative to them leaving would be 'I hate you and everything you're doing, but I'll keep going along with it anyway'.
Also I remember this old webcomic on the escapist that had one issue about this gear thing. It was in DA:O and the player had stripped down a character they knew would leave or betray the party, and they didn't want to lose the gear. The joke was 'well small wonder people leave you if you're letting them run around in their underwear, you jerk.'
it's also a really great way to make you FEEL the loss of a person. Problem is when the game encourage staying with the same party comp too much. If your replacement/plan B is as powerful and well equipped, it wouldnt be too big of an issue.
From a game design perspective, losing a party member seems like it could be resolved just by having the entire party gain experience, so that no particular member becomes irreplaceable. I'm not able to think of a negative aspect to this approach.
@@mdd4296 maybe they could fill the same role but in a different fashion, like replacing a rogue's dps with a wizard's dps.
@@RialuCaos The clash between narrative and gameplay will still be there. it IS a bit silly that the party member who stays in camp all the time levels up as much as the characters who are actually out there killing monsters. Well done Bobby, you cleaned the camp so hard that you're now an expert dragonslayer.
@@r31n0ut I suppose it does introduce that narrative dissonance. Seems like a small price to pay as opposed to the alternative of having invested into a character who is unexpectedly and unavoidably taken away, though.
Appreciate the constructive approach instead of just listing bad things without nuance.
Loosing party member mechanic is the only mechanic from this list that I really hate. It's the reason why I dropped Wasteland 3.
Another mechanic that wasn't mentioned but is annoying is level scalling. Mechanic that cause that any progress is meaningless and getting level is more like punishment always ends up uninstalling the game.
Conceptually I actually really like deck-based battle systems for a specific style of game, but I feel like they work better for action RPGs than CRPGs. The idea would be to make sure your skills aren't _super_ irreplaceable and they more serve to forcibly introduce a little bit of thinking on the fly and some variety to your combos when you'd otherwise spam the same series of special attacks until the enemy dies.
What's the music that plays over your intro?
Doesn't have a name. It was made for the channel specifically by a fan who is a composer actually. Link to their site in the description.
Nr5 Game spellforce 2 did did that in the right manner... There was a main party and 2 or 3 silver slots reserved for temporary party members, even if said member could be with you for most of the game.
About that losing char mechanic, theres this JRPG called Dragon Quest XI that transfers the weapon, skills, classes to another char thats in the party, and the best thing is: they make it in a way that DOES make sense to the story and was such a touching (and sad) scene.
I wont spoil it, but if you played it, you'll know who.
After Hearthstone blew up I felt like no one could understand my hatred of card mechanics. Thanks Mort!
I am big fan of card games in general, you ruined my day ⚔️
Hmmm. Comments
1. Timers - Can be done well if give a generous amount of time and clear outcomes for success or failure. The replacement water chip in fallout 1 is a really good example, it doesn't end the game and it has clearly explained consequences.
2. Cards - Cards belong in card games.
3. Fetch quests - Good as part of a gathering / crafting tutorial or if used in conjunction with other challenges. Example "I am making a fancy dinner plate, I need some dragon scales to finish it, five scales from a red, blue and purple dragon should do it".
4. Main character death game over - Makes sense in some contexts (Baldur's Gate - your soul is claimed the moment you die)
5. Party member removal - Can be annoying but I often find this happens to remove the early game crutch character. To give a sports analogy - Your team needs depth, Not a single superstar player.
Things that annoy me
Escort quests - I can only think of one escort quest that I can say I enjoyed and that is because it wasn't a quest but an entire game - ICO
False morality systems - Sure you murdered heaps of people and embezzled the funds needed to build the orphanage, but at the last moment you made the good choice so you get the good ending.
Romances - Maybe I am getting old, but romances in CRPG's seem to be getting worse. Thankfully, it's not Stardew Valley level yet, unless you count handing victims over to Camellia as being similar to giving Penny two melons per week.
Worst rpg mechanic ever for me: spell memorization. Makes no sense (temporarily forgetting spells after use?!), makes you hold on your spellcasters' coolest abilities forever because you don't know what's coming up and forces you on resting even if the rest of the party doesn't need it. Now, this is a DnD thing mostly and a mechanic that it's ok-ish for a pnp game, as in a session of 4 hours you'll probably make 0 to 2 fights; but in the same time in a video game you usually make like 50 fights. This is a problem especially with real-time DnD games and less in turn-based. BG3 for instance has managed somehow to balance these things up. Maybe because of its excessive environment use and pacing between fights, exploration and roleplaying.
Party member leaving is certainly more of a big deal in CRPGs than say most JRPGs. In those, you usually have less complex leveling systems (so you don't plan ahead as much) and many of those games you often have roating party members anyway. So, you are made aware early on that every but the main character/s is only temporary.
Timers, encumbrance/carry capacity, and item durability are ones I don't like. It's a game, I *know* it's a game, I don't want to be bogged down with having to repair gear or manage my inventory because I'm carrying too much.
I mean for some that touch of realism is what they want. Obviously depends on how you implement it.
Gloomhaven has very different card mechanics than what's typically found in games. You start off with all your cards and discard or burn as you go. Each round you pick 2 cards to play, one action and one move. There is some randomness in resting as that will burn a random card in the discard pile and place all the other back in your hand. The objective being to not burn all your cards before the end.
Hey - what's the third game you play in the vid? It's looks like Dragon Age? Great vid btw!
Dragon Age Inquisition
In regards to cards and combat, have you happened to try Gloomhaven(for PC)? It's obviously a "port" of a board game, but I think those particular card mechanics give you a lot of agency and makes decisions very interesting. I think It's a lot more enjoyable if you're playing it with at least one friend, but it's a very cool game mechanically in my opinion.
I've played it, video about it on the channel as well I believe, not really my cup of tea. Card mechanics are a hard sell for me, I admit my own bias on that one.
I like if a game takes away a party member early on to get you to try to newer characters . Persona 3 did something like this near early and mid game
- When a game is designed for you to explore every nook and cranny for loot and collectibles, and then suddenly expects you to rush through an area ("Quick, we have to go after him, he is getting away!")
- When you enter an area and do the most important thing, which is the very reason you came here, last, because you fear that doing it first will make you miss all other things you could do in the area.
Edit: I think these can be summarized as "Loot mechanics which destroy the narrative flow of a game."
I'm fine with important characters leaving the party. A good game kicks players out of their comfort zone now and then.
For me most "abusive" mechanics is:
• Consumables without reasonable way to get more of them. For example in Pathfinder Kingmaker there is no such thing as "Gold income" so every coin you want to spend on more permanent power not on single encounter. It just feel-bad spend same currency on both type of powers.
• Inventory weight. I could agree with "gear weight" but I really like Evil Islands inventory where all your "loot" are in special "stash" that you could manage only out of adventure.
I agree with all your points, especially timers
Hm. I actually never played this kind of game, but I get a bit curious thanks to your video. As for the annoyance of losing a party member, I think the correct way of doing it is to put some kind of obstacle in your quest which encourage you to switch to another character rather than losing a party member completely. In games I play it usually is done by placing some kind of huge debuff which would make an otherwise small weakness unbearable, and force you to look for a character who does not have this weakness. If this happens not just once but a multiple times, it may encourage you to level your backup characters, while still allowing you to use your main characters but with a huge debuff. Your choice how to deal with it.
What about madatory loss by plot? Like first encounter with Minagho in Patfinder: WotR?
It depend. Minagho makes perfect sense. She is an high ranking demons and you are a bunch of low level scrubs. It is like if the company could actually kill the Balrog. Something like Kai Leng sucks.
@@noukan42 took Minagho, just as conceptual example) but glad, that you understood)))
I grew up in South East Asia and my intro to rpgs were jrpg games. I didn't get to play "western" style games with the DND system until late in my teens or after I moved to the USA. The biggest confusion I had was the "AC" System, Armor Class. For the longest time it didn't make sense to me*, and it still doesn't sometimes (when robed monks have more "AC", than full-plate heavy armor wearers, etc, but thats in the scope of min-maxing). And then there's AC vs Magic too? Touch AC, etc, oh man!
*How does an Archer shoot and arrow "not hit" or "miss" a heavy armor/plate armor wearing dude?
I'm actually curious how many of these you definitively don't like regardless of context and how many you don't like because they don't interact well with 100%ing a game during a single playthrought. I use to be pretty negative towards all of these but have recently started appreciating some of them more, mostly because they've started being implemented better (except for the last one, which I just straight up appreciate more from a narrative perspective these days).
Timers; I prefer them over the plot hitting pause unless you're advancing it. I find that my immersion breaks a lot easier with the latter these days. It also helps that we have some really good examples of timers being done well. Persona 5 is probably my favourite in terms of a well implemented time system in an RPG (though I do think the game gives you way too much time overall and look forward to eventually playing P4G which I've heard is a lot more restrictive in how much you can do in a single playthrough). Roguelikes probably offer the best form of a timing system and I'm looking forward to more conventional RPGs starting to include exclusionary choices as a rule instead of rarely being present.
Card Mechanics; Whether I like this or not heavily depends on how well it's balanced, because if a TRPG dev tries to use chard mechanics without understanding why they work and what makes them exciting it's just going to be a miserable experience for everyone.
Loss of party members; This has actually been growing on me a lot more in recent years. I used to hate it and still don't like it all that much, but I appreciate it from a gameplay perspective. There's very little a game can do to make you feel as powerless as taking one of your characters away permanently and when the narrative calls for it, it can be brutally effective. I much prefer how Trails in the Sky did it though. There you had the two main characters and a cast of supporting characters the joined up and left as their own stories intersected with yours. This primed you to be ready for characters to leave and it also means the game what very definitively built around the fact that you're going to be playing with a rotating party composition throughout.
I guess it's not a mechanic exactly, but one of my least favorite things to deal with in RPGs is the very boring tutorial area before you get to the good stuff. I think about the two Knights of the Old Republic games, which are both great, but had really tedious starting areas where you didn't have cool abilities and you didn't get a lightsaber until way later! I understand games like to ease you into the action and teach you the ropes, but there's got to be a way to make that more fun.
Play crosscode
For me its these:
1. Weapon/armour degradation
2. Wonky save systems. A lack of auto saves for instance.
3. Useing a tiny inventory
4. Loot/item bloat
5. Swimming
6. Filler quests and general inflation of game time
Mandatory options. The game gives you options for stuff like abilities and dialogue choices, but if you don't take certain ones it basically makes the game either unplayable later on or instantly causes you to lose the game.